/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100211.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 29


CABLE ONE: Accused in Alabama of Installing Spyware Devices
CALEDONIA: Ontario Court Says Class-Action Suit May Proceed
CANADA LINE: Cambie Merchants' Class-Action Lawsuit Certified
CVS CAREMARK: Accused of Selling Expired Products in La. Suit
IOWA TELECOM: Settles Class Action Windstream Merger Litigation

LOS ANGELES: 9th Circuit Rejects Over-Detention Suit
OKLAHOMA: Court of Appeals Affirms Class in Foster Care Lawsuit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Accused of Misbranding & False Advertising
SEARS ROEBUCK: 234 Employees Share in $6.2 Mil. ADA Settlement
TIPPECANOE COUNTY: 7th Circuit Reinstates Grievance Policy Suit

TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius Owner Sues in Los Angeles County
TOYOTA MOTOR: Horwitz Files Hybrid Defect Suit in C.D. Calif.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Coughlin Files Shareholder Suit in C.D. Calif.


CABLE ONE: Accused in Alabama of Installing Spyware Devices
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal class action accuses Internet provider Cable One of
"interception and eavesdropping" by installing devices in its
broadband network so that NebuAd, an Internet ad company, could
place targeted ads in Web sites visited by Cable One customers.

Samuel Green claims Cable One installed the devices for several
months and was paid a "price per customer, per month" by NebuAd.
The online ad company used the information to "monitor and
profile" users and then place the ads on Web sites, according to
the federal complaint.

Cable One did not inform customers of the "infiltration" and did
not give them an opportunity to opt-out, the complaint states.
NebuAd is not named as a defendant.

Mr. Green says both Cable One and NebuAd have testified to a
congressional committee investigating whether NebuAd violated
wiretapping laws.  He claims Cable One lied when it testified
that NebuAd used no personal information belonging to users.

Mr. Green adds that Cable One's actions intruded on his
"seclusion and solitude."

The class seeks damages of $100 for each day of the intrusion and
wants Cable One to delete all the data it wrongfully collected.
Green claims that the class has had to spend time, money and
resources investigating and trying to remove the "third-party
tracking cookies" installed in their computers.

A copy of the Complaint in Green v. Cable One, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-00259 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Joey K. James, Esq.
          BUNCH & JAMES
          210 E. Tennessee St.
          Florence, AL 35630
          Telephone: 256-764-0095
               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          11 Broadway, Suite 2200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-920-3071

               - and -

          Brian J. Panish, Esq.
          Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
          11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone 310-477-1700

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: 214-943-6100

CALEDONIA: Ontario Court Says Class-Action Suit May Proceed
Canwest News Service reports that an Ontario Superior Court judge
said Monday a class-action lawsuit against the provincial police
over the 2006 Caledonia, Ont. native dispute can go forward.

More than 400 businesses and contractors and as many residents
have been identified as potentially joining the lawsuit to
complain how authorities handled the protest. Attorney John
Findlay, said claims could reach tens of millions of dollars.

The shutting down of a major street and highway during the crisis
for more than five weeks "had tremendous effect on the
businesses," Findlay said.

"The continual occupation had nuisance affects on the residents
who live around the site and the failure to clear the occupiers
from the site also affected the contractors supplier services."

Native protesters claiming ownership over land being developed
into a subdivision, known as the Douglas Creek Estates, occupied
the site in February, 2006.

The following April, OPP officers raided the site and ejected the
protesters only to be driven back when several hundred natives
from the nearby Six Nations reserve arrived.

The natives then erected barricades which cut off a number of
homes from the rest of the community.

"It is readily apparent that at the core issue of this lawsuit is
whether there was failure of the OPP to provide statutorily and
contractually required policing services to the residents of
Caledonia in each of the identified circumstances," wrote Justice
David S. Crane Monday in a decision which names a former OPP
commissioner, an OPP inspector and the province.

"Did the defendants allow a state of lawlessness to exist? Did
the defendants respond reasonably to circumstances that required
a balances approach?"

"It is my view that the goal of access to justice could not be
served by individual actions in the circumstances of this case."

The crisis in Caledonia, about 110 kilometres southwest of
Toronto, led to a flurry of court cases and lawsuits.

Last week charges were dropped against OPP Commissioner Julian
Fantino in relation to a complaint by a private citizen over his
handling of aboriginal protests in Caledonia.

In December the Ontario government and provincial police reached
an out-of-court settlement with a couple who claimed their family
was terrorized during the aboriginal occupation.

Lawyers will next meet, at a yet-to-be-determined date, to work
out a litigation plan and common issues with Crown attorneys.

CANADA LINE: Cambie Merchants' Class-Action Lawsuit Certified
Keith Fraser at The Province reports that several hundred
Vancouver merchants along Cambie Street, suing for damages
arising from the Canada Line construction, have had their case
certified as a class-action lawsuit.

The owners claim that the decision to use a cut-and-cover
construction method instead of a bored tunnel resulted in parking
and traffic problems that negatively affected their businesses.

Lawyers for the defendants, which include Canada Line Rapid
Transit Inc., argued that the suit didn't raise common issues and
that in any case, a class proceeding was not the best means to

But in a ruling released Monday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian
Pitfield found in favor of the owners.

"The complaints among the proposed class members are similar. The
common allegation is that construction substantially interfered
with access to the properties or businesses owned or operated by
members of the class. . . .  The common nature of the class
complaint favors certification."

The judge said there were several common issues to address. They
include whether the cut-and-cover method substantially interfered
with the businesses, and whether there was statutory authority
for that interference.

The class is comprised of 62 individuals or companies who own
properties in Cambie Village and another 215 individuals or
companies who operate a business from leased premises in the same

"We are very happy with the decision," said Leonard Schein, who
is on the board of directors of the Cambie Village Business

"It is the correct decision, which will save court time and legal
fees for everyone.  If TransLink would only settle with us rather
than keep wasting taxpayers' money with lawyers and court, it
would be in everyone's interest."

Mr. Justice Pitfield was the same judge who awarded clothing-
store owner Susan Heyes $600,000 for the nuisance created to her
shop by the rapid-transit-line construction.  The Heyes ruling is
under appeal.

A third lawsuit involves 41 other merchants on Cambie Street.

In his ruling on the class-action suit, Mr. Justice Pitfield
noted that the multi-party proceeding is "less practical or less
efficient" that a class proceeding for the merchants on Cambie.

The 19-kilometre Canada Line runs from downtown Vancouver to the
Vancouver International Airport in Richmond. It opened for
business last August.

CVS CAREMARK: Accused of Selling Expired Products in La. Suit
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark sells expired
medications, baby formula and food, a class action claims in New
Orleans Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cooper v. CVS Carmark Corporation,
Case No. 10-cv-00331 (E.D. La.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary J. Gambel, Esq.
          One Shell Square
          701 Poydras St., Suite 400
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: 504-523-0400

               - and -

          Jennifer N. Willis, Esq.
          WILLIS & BUCKLEY
          3723 Canal St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: 504-488-6300

IOWA TELECOM: Settles Class Action Windstream Merger Litigation
Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (NYSE Symbol: IWA)
announced that Iowa Telecom and Windstream Corporation have
entered into a tentative settlement of the pending shareholder
litigation concerning the Company's acquisition by Windstream
pursuant to the merger agreement signed on November 23, 2009.
Following the announcement of the merger on November 24, 2009,
several purported shareholders of the Company filed putative
class action lawsuits challenging the merger and certain terms of
the merger agreement. The directors of Iowa Telecom firmly
believe that they acted in good faith and in the best interests
of Iowa Telecom and its shareholders in approving the merger and
the merger agreement.  Iowa Telecom and its directors believe
that the merger consideration is fair and that the merger is in
the best interests of Iowa Telecom and its shareholders. Iowa
Telecom, its directors and Windstream deny that any of them
violated any law or breached any duty to shareholders of Iowa
Telecom or anyone else and have vigorously defended the lawsuits.

However, Iowa Telecom and its directors have determined that, in
order to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and
expense of future litigation and to permit the merger to proceed
without possible delays from litigation, it is in the best
interests of Iowa Telecom and its shareholders to enter into a
settlement of the pending lawsuits. Iowa Telecom, its directors
and Windstream have entered into a memorandum of understanding
with counsel for the plaintiffs in the various shareholder
lawsuits that provides for a settlement of all of these lawsuits.
Pursuant to the proposed settlement, Iowa Telecom and Windstream
have agreed to make certain revisions to the disclosure in the
proxy statement to be mailed to Iowa Telecom's shareholders in
connection with the approval of the merger, which revisions were
proposed by counsel for the plaintiffs. No changes in the merger
agreement or the terms of the merger will be made, and no
payments will be made to shareholders in addition to those
provided for in the merger agreement. In exchange for these
revised disclosures, following completion of confirmatory
discovery and final court approval of the settlement, the
plaintiffs will dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice and release
Iowa Telecom, its directors, Windstream and other related persons
from any and all claims relating to the merger or the proxy
statement for the merger. Iowa Telecom, its directors and
Windstream have all agreed that they will not oppose certain
requests for attorney fees by counsel for the plaintiffs. The
settlement is subject to certain conditions, including, in
addition to certain confirmatory due diligence by plaintiffs'
counsel and court approval, certification of a class for
settlement purposes and consummation of the merger.

Iowa Telecom does not expect that the pendency of the litigation
or the settlement process will cause a delay in the closing of
the merger. As previously announced, Iowa Telecom and Windstream
expect the closing to occur mid-2010.

             Additional Information and Where to Find It

In connection with the proposed transaction, Windstream has filed
a registration statement on Form S-4 with the SEC, which includes
the Company's preliminary proxy statement and also constitutes a
prospectus with respect to the Windstream securities. At the
appropriate time, the Company will mail the proxy
statement/prospectus to its shareholders. INVESTORS ARE URGED TO
IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Investors may obtain free copies of the
registration statement and proxy statement/prospectus, as well as
other filings containing information about Windstream and the
Company, without charge, at the SEC's Internet web site
(www.sec.gov). These documents may also be obtained for free from
the Company's Investor Relations web site (www.iowatelecom.com)
or by directing a request to the Company at 403 W. Fourth Street
North, Newton, Iowa 50208 or by calling (641) 787-2000. Copies of
Windstream's filings may be obtained for free from Windstream's
Investor Relations Web Site (www.windstream.com) or by directing
a request to Windstream at Windstream Investor Relations, 4001
Rodney Parham Road, Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 or by calling
(866) 320-7922.

The Company, Windstream and their respective officers and
directors may be deemed, under SEC rules, to be participants in
the solicitation of proxies from the Company's shareholders with
respect to the proposed Merger. Information regarding the
officers and directors of the Company is included in its
definitive proxy statement for its 2009 annual meeting filed with
the SEC on April 29, 2009. Information regarding the officers and
directors of Windstream is included in its Form 10-K for 2008
filed on February 19, 2009, and in its definitive proxy statement
for its 2009 annual meeting filed with the SEC on March 23, 2009.
More detailed information regarding the identity of potential
participants in the solicitation, and their direct or indirect
interests, by securities, holdings or otherwise, which interests
may be different from those of the Company's shareholders
generally, are set forth in the proxy statement and other
materials to be filed with SEC in connection with the proposed

                         About Iowa Telecom

Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (d/b/a Iowa Telecom) --
http://www.iowatelecom.com/-- is a telecommunications service  
provider that offers local telephone, long distance, Internet,
broadband and network access services to business and residential
customers. Today, the company serves over 450 Iowa communities
and 16 Minnesota communities and employs nearly 800 people. The
company's headquarters are in Newton, Iowa. The Company trades on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol IWA.

LOS ANGELES: 9th Circuit Rejects Over-Detention Suit
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit tossed a
class action accusing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
of taking its "sweet time" to process release orders, detaining
people up to 29 hours after courts authorized their release.

Former detainees said their prolonged detentions were the result
of "deliberate indifference" to their constitutional rights by
the department and Sheriff Leroy Baca.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson ruled for the defendants,
saying Sheriff Baca can't reasonably be expected to have
hundreds, even thousands, of detainees discharged immediately
after the court orders their release, given the amount of
paperwork that needs to be completed between the order and the
actual release.

Judge Pregerson also pointed the sheriff has made substantial
progress over recent years in decreasing the number of people
detained after their release orders.

On appeal, the detainees insisted that the department has taken
its "sweet time" in releasing them, and that this lackadaisical
manner amounts to a policy of deliberate indifference.

The three-judge panel in Pasadena upheld Judge Pregerson's
finding that Sheriff Baca can't be held responsible for the time
it takes to process a detainee's release.

The circuit court also agreed that Sheriff Baca has taken
adequate steps toward resolving the problem.

A copy of the decision in Mortimer, et al. v. Baca, No. 07-55393
(9th Cir.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Marion R. Yagman, Esq.
          Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: 310-452-3200

Leroy D. Baca, the Defendant-Appellee, is represented by:

          David D. Lawrence, Esq.
          Michael D. Allen, Esq.
          Justin W. Clark, Esq.
          100 West Broadway, Suite 1200
          Glendale, CA 91210
          Telephone: 818-545-1925

OKLAHOMA: Court of Appeals Affirms Class in Foster Care Lawsuit
Kevin King at The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals
court has affirmed a lower-court ruling that granted class-action
status to a lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human
Services. A three-judge panel ruled Monday that U.S. District
Judge Gregory Frizzell didn't abuse his discretion when he
certified the lawsuit as a class-action case in June. The 2008
lawsuit by Children's Rights, a child advocacy organization,
accused the state of not finding "safe and adequate" homes for
foster children and of inadequately monitoring their safety "due
to an overburdened and mismanaged work force." Agency officials
have said the strategy of the case filed on behalf of nine of the
state's 10,000 foster children is to force them into an expensive
settlement.  Attorneys for the agency and for Children's Rights
didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.

A copy of the opinion in DG, et al. v. Devaughn, et al., No.
09-5093 (10th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/7ZFWH

The State is represented by:

          Donald M. Bingham, Esq.
          Donna Marie De Simone, Esq.
          Robert P. Skeith, Esq.
          Holly Hillerman, Esq.
          502 West Sixth Street
          Tulsa, OK 74119-1010
          Telephone: (918) 587-3161

               - and -

          Robert A. Nance, Esq.
          Melvin C. Hall, Esq.
          Stephen L. Cortes, Esq.
          Thomas Askew, Esq.
          5801 N. Broadway , Suite 101
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118-7489

               - and -

          Joseph W. Strealy, Esq.
          Richard W. Freeman, Jr., Esq.
          Richard A. Resetaritz, Esq.
          P.O. Box 53025
          Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3025

               - and -
          Catherine Ann O'Leary, Esq.
          Tulsa District Child Support Enforcement
          P.O. Box 3643
          Tulsa, OK 74101

               - and -  

          Scott D. Boughton, Esq.
          Tricia L. Everest, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General
          Litigation Division
          313 N.E. 21st Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73105

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frederic Dorwart, Esq.
          Paul DeMuro, Esq.
          124 East Fourth Street
          Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-5010
          Telephone: 918-583-9922
          Facsimile: 918-583-8251

               - and -  

          R. Thomas Seymour, Esq.
          Scott A Graham, Esq.
          100 W. Fifth Street, Suite 550
          Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4288
          Telephone: 918-583-5791
          Facsimile: 918-583-9251

               - and -  

          Bruce Day, Esq.
          Joe E. Edwards, Esq.
          Suite 2900, Oklahoma Tower
          210 Park Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239-2121
          Facsimile: (405) 236-1012

               - and -  

          Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq.
          Ira P. Lustbader, Esq.
          William Kapell, Esq.
          Yasmin Grewal-Kok, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 683-2210
          Facsimile: (212) 683-4015

               - and -  

          Phillip A. Geraci, Esq.
          Mark A. Beckman, Esq.
          R. Nadine Fontaine, Esq.
          Carly Henek, Esq.
          Andrew Bauer, Esq.
          425 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-3598
          Telephone: (212) 836-8000

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Accused of Misbranding & False Advertising
Courthouse News Service reports that to capitalize on swine flu
"hysteria," Procter & Gamble added vitamin C to its NyQuil and
Day Quil drugs without a new drug application, and hawked them
with false and misleading ads, a class action claims in
Cincinnati Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Buffa v. The Procter & Gamble Company,
Case No. 10-cv-00066 (S.D. Ohio) (Spiegel, J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          2712 Observatory Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: 513-723-1600

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-989-9113

SEARS ROEBUCK: 234 Employees Share in $6.2 Mil. ADA Settlement
Lynne Marek at The National Law Journal reports that a federal
judge in Chicago late last week gave final approval to the
allocation of $6.2 million among 235 former Sears, Roebuck & Co.
employees in the largest settlement ever reached by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in an Americans with
Disabilities Act class action.

The former workers, who said the company fired them after they
went on disability leave, will receive between $2,500 and
$122,500 each, depending on their individual circumstances,
according to the allocation approved by U.S. District Judge Wayne
Andersen of the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 4. The
workers will receive the money in the next two months. Overall
settlement of the case with a consent decree was reached and
announced last September.

The EEOC sued Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears in 2004 following
a complaint from John Bava, an injured appliance service
technician who said Sears fired him after he took a leave for
knee, wrist and back injuries suffered on the job.  Mr. Bava is
the only plaintiff to get the top $122,500 payout, based on his
initiation and the facts of his particular case, said John
Hendrickson, who leads the Chicago regional EEOC office that
pursued the matter.

The agency found in pretrial discovery that many other employees
at the retailer had encountered treatment similar to that
experienced by Mr. Bava.  Gregory Gochanour, Esq., was the
supervisory EEOC trial attorney in Chicago on the case, and he
had assistance from Deborah Hamilton, Esq., and Aaron DeCamp,

One of Sears' lawyers:

          Amy L. Bess, Esq.
          Suite 600, East Tower
          1301 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC  20005-3364
          Telephone: 202-408-6400

referred Ms. Marek's request for comment to the Sears legal
department, which had no comment on the allocation.

TIPPECANOE COUNTY: 7th Circuit Reinstates Grievance Policy Suit
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinstated a class action brought
by inmates of Tippecanoe County Jail, who say jail staff ignored
their grievances, opened their legal mail in their absence and
barred them from using the law library.

Lead plaintiff Jeffery Mark Olson sued county sheriff Tracy
Brown, alleging numerous violations of the First Amendment and
Indiana law.

The district court dismissed the case as moot, since Mr. Olson
had been transferred out of the county jail 13 days after filing
for class certification.

On appeal, Mr. Olson argued that the case should proceed, because
it was inherently transitory for any possible named plaintiff.

The Chicago-based appellate panel agreed with Mr. Olson and
revived the class action.

"We find that this case fits within the exception to the mootness
doctrine carved out for inherently transitory cases," Judge Joel
Flaum wrote.

"The duration of [Olson's] claim was at the discretion of the
Indiana Department of Correction," Judge Flaum added.  The
uncertainty of his release or transfer "is precisely what makes
the 'inherently transfer' exception applicable in this case."

The judges reversed and remanded.

A copy of the decision in Olson v. Brown, No. 09-2728 (7th Cir.),
is available at:


The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
          1031 E. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: 317-635-4059

Tracy Brown, the Defendant-Appellee, is represented by:

          Douglas J. Masson, Esq.
          Lafayette, Ind.
          P.O. Box 99
          200 Ferry Street, Suite C
          Lafayette, IN 47902
          Telephone: 765-423-5404

TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius Owner Sues in Los Angeles County
Steve Gorman at Reuters reports from Los Angeles that Toyota
Motor Corp. faces its first U.S. class-action lawsuit stemming
from complaints of faulty braking of its top-selling Prius hybrid
model, which the automaker is to recall.

The suit -- Miller vs. Toyota Motor Sales, USA et al, No.
BC431344 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.) -- was filed in
Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday, and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and a court order requiring Toyota
to repair a braking defect that the named plaintiff, Elaine
Miller, says makes driving her 2010 Prius dangerous.

Ms. Miller's lawyer:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          15165 Ventura Boulevard Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300

said on Monday he is seeking class-action status in California
for all affected owners of the 2010-year Prius and the 2010 Lexus
HS250h hybrid, which he said is equipped with the same braking

"The crux of the (suit) is to get these vehicles fixed and safe,"
he told Reuters.

A Toyota spokesman declined comment on the product liability
suit, which accuses the company of negligence and breach of

The lawsuit says the cars "suffer from a material defect" in
their "regenerative braking system" -- designed to recycle
kinetic energy from the friction of slowing the car -- that
causes the brake system "to routinely and systematically

It has been just over two weeks since the world's largest
automaker began a recall of 8 million vehicles because of a
sticky gas pedal, but already, at least 30 class-action lawsuits
have been filed against the cash-rich company.

Mr. Warshaw said he brought the suit, believed to be the first
seeking class-action status against Toyota over Prius braking
complaints, in California because the state has some of the
nation's toughest consumer protection laws and because Toyota's
U.S. operations are based there.

                        SOFTWARE GLITCH CITED

Mr. Warshaw said the problem, apparently rooted in a computer
software glitch, is most pronounced when trying to slow down or
stop the vehicle on uneven or slippery road surfaces.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an agency of
the U.S. Transportation Department, lists 124 such braking
complaints from consumers since February 3, including four
reports of accidents, two of them said to have resulted in

NHTSA said it opened a formal investigation February 4 into
complaints of "momentary loss of braking capability while
traveling over an uneven road surface, pothole or bump."

The suit suggests that tens of thousands of vehicles may be
affected. The bulk of some 103,000 model-year 2010 Prius cars
sold in the United States are in California, Warshaw said.

Toyota acknowledged it was aware of a braking problem and sought
to fix it in production with a software adjustment starting in
January, but 2010 models that rolled off the assembly line before
that were sold without the change.

Ms. Miller's car, purchased by the Los Angeles retiree in August
of 2009, was one. The 2010 model Prius was introduced in the
United States in May 2009.

"We don't even know if the (production) fix was effective," Mr.
Warshaw said. "They're required to issue a technical service
bulletin" (to repair cars) but "that was never done."

A U.S. Toyota spokesman has said the company expected to have a
solution to braking complaints early this week and was preparing
a global recall.

The Prius has been the world's best-selling hybrid vehicle,
helping Toyota grab 70 percent of the U.S. market for vehicles
powered by a combination of an external-combustion engine and
electric motor.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Horwitz Files Hybrid Defect Suit in C.D. Calif.
Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, filed a nationwide
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class comprised of
all persons and entities who purchased or leased any of the
following Toyota (NYSE:TM) or Lexus Hybrid vehicles: (i) model
year 2006 through 2009 Prius; (ii) model year 2010 Prius; (iii)
model year 2005 through 2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid; (iv) model
year 2005 through 2010 Lexus RX 400h; (v) model year 2009 through
2010 Lexus RX 450h; and (vi) model year 2009 through 2010 Lexus
HS 250h.  

The Complaint alleges that the brake system in the Toyota Hybrids
is defectively designed and does not function properly when the
Toyota Hybrids encounter slippery or uneven roadways, resulting
in the activation of the anti-lock brake and vehicle stability
control systems, and the inability of the Skid Control electronic
control unit to cause the brakes to function properly. The design
defect in the Toyota Hybrids is caused by a flaw in software
which controls the Toyota Hybrids' brake system.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the design defect in the
Toyota Hybrids causes a delay between the time the brake pedal is
engaged and when the brake system begins to slow the Toyota
Hybrids. With the delay, a Toyota Hybrid traveling at 60 miles
per hour will have traveled an additional 90-100 feet before the
brakes even begin to engage - creating a grave safety issue for
Class members and the public.

Finally, the Complaint alleges that Toyota has known of the
defective brake system in the Toyota Hybrids for years, but that
Toyota has refused to publicly acknowledge the existence of the
defect or recall these Toyota Hybrids in order to repair them so
that they can be made safe.

The complaint seeks certain relief including the replacement
and/or recall of all the Toyota Hybrids equipped with the
defective brake system, restitution and damages.

If you have any information concerning the defective brake system
in the Toyota Hybrid vehicles, or purchased or leased a Toyota
Hybrid that you believe is equipped with a defective brake system
and would like further information regarding this nationwide
class action, please contact Molly Briere at 212-986-4500 or e-
mail at mbriere@hhplawny.com.

Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, has been retained
as one of the law firms to represent the Class. The attorneys at
Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, have extensive
experience in prosecuting class action cases. The firm has been
appointed as Lead Counsel in numerous major class actions by
federal courts across the United States and has obtained major
recoveries on behalf of injured parties.

     CONTACT:  Michael A. Schwartz, Esq.
               405 Lexington Avenue, 61st Floor
               New York, NY 10174
               Telephone: (212) 986-4500
               Fax: (212) 986-4501

TOYOTA MOTOR: Shareholder Suit Filed in C.D. Calif.
DailyBreeze.com reports that Toyota Motor Corp. was sued this
week in Los Angeles federal court for failing to disclose to
investors that there was a major design defect in the automaker's
acceleration systems.

The proposed class action complaint, filed in U.S. District Court
in downtown Los Angeles by a San Diego law firm on behalf of all
purchasers of Toyota publicly traded securities, accuses Toyota,
certain of its affiliates and certain of their officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that Toyota issued "materially false and
misleading statements" regarding its operations and its business
and financial results and outlook when the company knew it had a
design problem.

"Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that there
was a major design defect in Toyota's acceleration system, which
could cause unintended acceleration," the lawsuit alleges.

"As a result of defendants' false statements, Toyota's securities
traded at artificially inflated prices -- reaching a high of
$91.78 per share on Jan. 19."

Toyota's stock price had fallen to $73.49 per share on Feb. 3.

A copy of the 47-page Complaint in Stackhouse v. Toyota Motor
Corp., Case No. 10-cv-00922 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren J. Robins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-7423

               - and -  

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          100 Pen Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: 215-561-3600


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *